click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20120926
20121004
STATION
CSPAN 15
LANGUAGE
English 15
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
, but it seemed to me whenever nixon said, kennedy just looked at him and smirked. which played into kennedy's hands. he did have the indian side on that nixon. nixon gave him a poor family. he was clumsy. and he was defending an administration that he is not only in support of. >> what is the first thing you want to see as the debate began? >> that is an interesting question. i think maybe what i want to see is nothing. and maybe for the first time i will turn the tv on, walk into the other room and listen. and see what can be cleaned by focusing on what is being said, -- what can be gleaned by focusing on what is being said. >> we can stand by them. but that goes to the radio point of people who are listening to nixon on radio. >> i am listening for things that are said by the candidates, and especially things that i can then go back and verify after. to listen for claims, for arguments that i can go back and say, is this something that is real, that is credible? and then look out for other information that either verifies or --. >> i want to make a comment on the appearance of thing. that
to the 1960 debate between richard nixon and john kennedy as the first impression that each candidate made to the voters. in 2000, same thing between al gore. the split screen showing him signing to the responses of george w. bush. >> one of the things both campaigns talk about is this is a possible advantage for governor romney because there is an elevated factor for him. he is on the same stage as the president. these debates to make an impression. sometimes they have a lasting impression. often, they do not. it is an opportunity, one of the few moments in the campaign, the conventions are another, but this is the last opportunity that both candidates have to speak to such a large audience at once. >> laura meckler, thank you for being with us. we have warren decker. he is from a university in fairfax, virginia. joining us from boston, a professor alan schroeder. he has 50 years of high risk tv. what makes a good debate and a good debater? >> i think the difference between a really good debate from my standpoint, intercollegiate debate, and debates we see at the presidential level is tha
for better u.s.-china relationships. now, the open china you and president nixon made in early 1970's, was not only a turning point in history, but also it has changed our lives, for millions of people, chinese, chinese americans, and americans. thank you very much, doctor kissinger. [applause] now, one of the things you have taught us is to better understand chinese politics, or how to develop a broader vision. we have to have a deeper understanding of chinese politics, society, behaviors, political systems. let me come to the question you raised. i am disappointed, not what the leadership, but rather disappointed with the social media. it is fair to say that the chinese government said several times in a press conference and to foreign delegates that vice- president shi was injured in his back. i think that is enough. more importantly, i was interviewed many times by the media. i say i do not want to comment. there is nothing happening. they would cancel their trip. the police and the military would react unusual. there is no sign whatsoever. it seems like it is very odd that the ch
with john f. kennedy facing vice-president nixon. the next debates were not until 1976. a commission was set up to run the debates. at town hall format was introduced in 1992, which will be the format for the second debate. -- a town hall format was introduced in 1992. that will take place october 16. the final debate returns to the moderator and candidates on october 22 at lynn university of florida. on the panel today to discuss going beyond winning and losing, and we will move from my immediate left, correspondent of the new york times, abc news and nbc news and participant in the first televised debate in 1960 in chicago. and the grower, washington post contributing writer. ndy grower " washington post" contributing writer. michael hogan. charles mack gokalain. catherine olsen, univ. of wisconsin milwaukee and director of the schools frederick program. thank you all for being with us today. we will begin the program today with a bit of advice for those of you here in the studio and those of you watching for following this on twitter. when we go to questions, there are two microphones and
a minister to the white house, as president nixon used to do, or someone to camp david, as president carter used to do? >> the answer to your question is very simple about why i don't go to church. i have gone to church regularly all my life, and i started to here in washington. and now, in the position i hold and in the world in which we live, where embassies do get blown up in beirut -- we're supposed to talk about that on the debate the 21st, i understand -- but i pose a threat to several hundred people if i go to church. i know the threats that are made against me. we all know the possibility of terrorism. we have seen the barricades that have had to be built around the white house. and, therefore, i don't feel -- and my minister knows this and supports me in this position -- i don't feel that i have a right to go to church, knowing that my being there could cause something of the kind that we have seen in other places, in beirut, for example. and i miss going to church, but i think the lord understands. [applause] >> may i ask you, please -- [applause] -- may i ask the audience please
was assigned to conduct the first mission to china. largely because president nixon felt that if he went through regular channels, he would be overwhelmed with a lot of technical details on subjects he considered not up to the immediate challenge, and he could be sure i cannot overwhelm him with details. so when i first came to china, i had an experience which is perhaps unique in this sense -- every visitor to china would have killed for the privilege of meeting chairman mao. i was terrified of having to do it for the reason that i knew that president nixon wanted to be the first policymaker who met mao. i knew my life would not be worth living if i came back having done the first photograph of an american with chairman mao. chairman mao had given instructions that if i requested a meeting with him, i should be taken to him immediately. i went through enormous contortions not to request a meeting. [laughter] and so i achieved that goal of my visit. i've met, of course, each generation of chinese leaders. reflected theaem mission and the conditions of his period. mao was a revolutionary,
news, which wouldn't exist if it wasn't for what reagan did, and, you know, he's the guy from nixon. it's not balanced at all. you see the major networks, after the shows are over with republican speakers that were just blatantly lying, and they ask the host why they let them do it, and they say that's the only way we can get guests on tv is to allow these people to lie. it's not fair at all. and you, you guys put up the washington, why don't you just start with the "national enquirer"? it's all downhill from there. "the washington times," i don't know if you really read it, reverend moon, god rest his soul, his lovely paper is not exactly a newspaper. i mean, fair and balanced, fox? it's a joke. i mean, the media coverage got to be where they tell these people anyway. host: that's dion in new jersey. up next is an independent from ohio. you are on c-span. gerald, first of all, are you a true independent? have you made up your mind yet? caller: oh, yes, i made up my mind. i made up my mind quite a while ago. host: who are you going to vote for? caller: i'm strictly for obama because of
. >> a history of modern presidential debates. the first one was in 1960, kennedy-nixon. then there was a hiatus until 1976, when gerald ford agreed to debate jimmy carter. the debate commission was established in 1987. jim lehrer, tonight's moderator, has moderated the most debates over those years, 12 altogether. you have gotten criticisms about a moderator 6 -- selection, that they are mainstream media, all white, and middle-age or older. what is the response to that? >> we would state it slightly differently. we would say we have picked four exceptional journalists to have a lot of experience in doing presidential debates and covering politics in the white house and in foreign policy. we think they are also four individuals who have proven it is not about them. we do not want moderator's here trying to put themselves ahead of what the candidates have to say. at the end of the day, the american people want to hear from the candidates. one thing jim lehrer has demonstrated is that he is the type of moderator who lets the candidates do the talking. he will ask the questions, they will be pointe
of history, this campaign is a lot like the 1960 race between kennedy and nixon. it is like the campaigns in the early 1900's when women's right to vote was a central civil rights issue of the country. it is like the campaigns in the 1840's and 1850's and the election of abraham lincoln when the issue of slavery or freedom was a central issue of the country. those local elections before the revolution were similar in the way that they cast the issue as being one in which there is a status of british citizenship and american citizenship. the gap had to be closed. the reason i would bring this up as a candidate -- my platform would be to close at the civil gap. all of us of being in this room being somewhat government professionals know that budgets are not really about money, but civil commitments. budgets are architectures of all of the civil commitment to have made to each other as citizens over many generations. the way in which these commitments a range from national security to air traffic control and to food safety, all of these commitments accumulated year after year very slowly and
probably running out of time. i will say that on the optimism front, can anyone imagine during the kennedy-nixon debates that we would all be watching it with twitter, that there would be fact checking, that there would be conversations going on? hearing him on the radio, he sounds a lot better. or anything like that. i think this is a great time for political coverage, and i hope that that turns out to be true in the next few weeks and that we do not instead see some degraded moments of politics, but i think it is going to be fascinating. >> thank you. do you want to pick up? anna? >> i am, again, anna sale, and i think what is most prominent is what we think about is who is winning, and thirdly, where is the race taking place, and that is what we are looking at, swing states, and that is where a lot of my reporting has been at over the last six months. we are clearly -- radio. voter voices is a big driver of how we want to cover the election, so we started a series this summer called "that is my issue," and with that, we are hearing what the candidates are focusing on, trying to get people to
to that that birth control access should be a non-partisan issue. president nixon signed title 10 into law. it was a republican value for less government intrusion in our lives and good, fiscal conservatism. $1 investment pays $4 in unnecessary costs. as we know today, social ideology is forcing some of our politicians to be more socially conservative and fiscally responsible because they recognize it is just good, public health. >> i get a little nervous about some of these responses, frankly. there is a tension between the government and the individual. it is in certain areas. i can practically agree with everything, but not absolutely. the government, at times, has to force employers to pay a minimum wage. the government has to force big companies -- the government has a lot of things that the government has to do. you live with this tension. be very careful. i think the best solution is a single-payer system. [applause] i have always said to my opponents, i never heard anybody, when they are getting on an airplane, saying, get the government off my back. [laughter] [applause] >> it bri
, and as a student of history, this campaign is a lot like the 1960 race between kennedy and nixon. it is like the campaigns in the early 1900's when women's right to vote was a central civil rights issue of the country. it is like the campaigns in the 1840's and 1850's and the election of abraham lincoln when the issue of slavery or freedom was a central issue of the country. those local elections before the revolution were similar in the way that they cast the issue as being one in which there is a status of british citizenship and american citizenship. the gap had to be closed. the reason i would bring this up as a candidate -- my platform would be to close at the civil gap. all of us of being in this room being somewhat government professionals know that budgets are not really about money, but civil commitments. budgets are architectures of all of the civil commitment to have made to each other as citizens over many generations. the way in which these commitments a range from national security to air traffic control and to food safety, all of these commitments accumulated year after year v
nixon. it's not balanced at all. after the shows are over, with the republican speaker that was just the white only lying. when you ask the house why they let them do it they say it's the only way they can get them on tv. you guys put up "the washington times." start with "the national enquirer." with all downhill from there. it's not exactly a newspaper. the media coverage got to be where they tell these people anything. that's all i have to say. host: up next, an independent from ohio. you are on c-span. first of all, are you a true independent? have you made a pure mind yet? -- your mind yet. caller: yes. i'm strictly for obama. romney, just like the previous caller said, he is nothing but strait lies. i'm going to be frank with you. i think half the country morons, illiterate, and flat out stupid. i pray for the country. the citizenry is dumb. they are flat out stupid. host: chances are we're going to get a response to that comment. caller: i hope so. maybe it will wait some of them up and have them read something and trying to understand. over half the country i think it's flat
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)